Gerald Kostecka v. Smokey Mo's Franchise, LLC D/B/A Smokey Mo's BBQ

ACCEPTED 03-15-00295-CV 8063499 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/2/2015 11:09:06 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK Cause No. 03-15-00295-CV FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/2/2015 11:09:06 PM IN THE COURT OF APPEALS JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Gerald Kostecka, Appellant VS Smoky Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ, Appellee On appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT Stuart Whitlow LAW OFFICES OF STUART C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC WHITLOW 1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116 Round Rock, Texas 78664 (737) 346-1839 (512) 255-5938 (fax) stuartwhitlowlaw@yahoo.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC NAMES OF ALL PARTIES TO FINAL JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Gerald Kostecka Represented at trial and on appeal by: Stuart Whitlow LAW OFFICES OF STUART WHITLOW 1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116 Round Rock, Texas 78664 (737)346-1839 (512) 255-5938 (fax) stuartwhitlowlaw@yahoo.com DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC Represented at trial and on appeal by: Robert A. House Clark & Trevino 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 920 Austin, Texas 78744 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEXOF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………vii ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 1 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................ 9 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC vi INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Farlow v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital, 284 S.W.3d 903, 911 (Tex. App.-- Fort Worth 2008, Pet. Denied)…………………………………………………………………5 La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 673 S.W.2d 558, 563 (Tex. 1984). …………………………………………………………………………..5 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC vii STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS Texas Rule of Evidence 801(e)(2)(D)…………………………………………………………….7 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC viii IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Gerald Kostecka, Appellant VS Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC, d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ, Appellee On appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: Appellant, Gerald Kostecka, submits this Reply Brief pursuant to Rule 38.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in support of his C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 1 appeal and requests reversal of the trial court=s order granting Appellee=s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Appellant asks that this cause be set for submission on oral argument. ARGUMENT Appellee’s basic point in their brief seems to be that Appellant failed to bring forth more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact with respect to certain elements of Appellant’s cause of action. Appellee’s Brief at Page 3, 8. Appellee’s first argument is that “Kostecka puts forth no evidence of the injuries, or other damages, he claims to have sustained.” Appellee’s Brief at Page 9. In his Affidavit in support of his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 2 Judgment (hereinafter “Response”), however, Appellant states that “[a]s a result of the fall, I sustained substantial injuries to my body (in particular my left leg and knee) and felt severe pain and suffering. As a result of the fall, I also have experienced substantial physical impairment and mental anguish. Such pain and suffering, as well as the physical impairment resulting from the injuries and mental anguish continue until this day.” Response, Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Obviously, contrary to Appellee’s assertion, Appellant brought forth more than a scintilla of evidence on this element and thus raised a fact issue. Appellee then argues that the facts set forth in Appellant’s C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 3 Affidavit supporting the Response are nothing more than repetitions of the facts in Appellant’s pleadings. To the contrary, Appellee has it backwards. The facts set forth in Appellant’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment are taken from Appellant’s Affidavit attached to the Response. Appellee appears to be saying that Appellant’s statements regarding the injuries resulting from the fall in Appellee’s restaurant are “conclusory” in nature. Appellee’s Brief at Page 10. It is hardly “conclusory” to say that one suffered injuries to one’s left leg and knee as a result of a fall and that one felt severe pain and suffering as a result. Again, contrary to Appellees’ assertion, it is not a conclusory statement to say that when Appellant reached for C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 4 the salt shaker at the table in Appellees’ restaurant, Appellant’s chair shot out from under him and he fell to the floor landing on his left knee. Response, Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. This is probative summary judgment evidence. To argue that such statements are “conclusory” reveals a serious misunderstanding of that term. Appellee also argues that Appellant failed to bring forth more than a scintilla of evidence that the unsafe condition with respect to Appellant’s restaurant floor and chairs presented an unreasonable risk. Appellee’s Brief at P. 11, 12. Here again, Appellant presented evidence of a Smokey Mo’s employee coming up to Appellant right after the fall C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 5 and stating that the condition of the floor and the nature of the bottom of the chair legs created a dangerous condition for customers in terms of the chairs moving out from under customers just like Appellant’s chair moved out from under him. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. This statement in and of itself directly provides far more than a scintilla of evidence with respect to unreasonable risk of harm. When this statement is combined with what actually happened to Appellant and the various general rules of summary judgment with their generous leaning toward the non-movant, Appellant has even more obviously met his burden in this regard. Appellant’s Brief at Page 4, 5. Appellee also argues that Appellant failed to present a scintilla of C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 6 evidence that Appellee possessed the premises where Appellant was injured. Appellee’s Brief at Page 12, 13. To the contrary, Appellant stated in his Affidavit that he and his wife went to a Smokey Mo’s BBQ restaurant and that that is where he was injured. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. He stated that he spoke with two Smokey Mo’s BBQ employees after his fall at the restaurant. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Further, they spoke to him about how Smokey Mo’s was aware of the dangerous condition. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Appellant also talked about how Appellee failed to exercise ordinary care in addressing the problem with its floor even though it knew about the C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 7 dangerous condition. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. If Appellee could not address the problem, it needed to warn Appellant about the danger but it did not. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Clearly, Appellant brought forth far more than a scintilla of evidence with respect to this element. In addition, the generous presumptions favoring the non-movant in a no-evidence summary judgment analysis further make clear that Appellant far more than met his burden with respect to this element. Appellant’s Brief at Page 4, 5. Appellee also apparently argues that the statements of the Smokey Mo’s BBQ employees set forth in Appellant’s Affidavit were C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 8 hearsay because they were not acting within the scope of their authority. Although they were acting within the scope of their authority, this is not one of the requirements for determining whether statements of an entity’s employees are hearsay or an admission by an opposing party. Appellee cites Farlow v. Harris Methodist Forth Worth Hospital, 284 S.W.3d 903, 911 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2008, pet denied) in support of Appellee’s point in this regard. Farlow, however, does not stand for this proposition of law. (Appellee also cites La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 673 S.W2d 448, 563 (Tex. 1984) in its discussion of this issue, but it is very difficult to see how this case is supportive of Appellee’s position.) Appellee correctly states the clear C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 9 language of Rule 801(e)(2)(D) of the Texas Rules of Evidence (the governing Rule of Evidence with respect to this issue) to the effect that a statement made by agents or employees on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed is not hearsay. Appellee apparently believes, however, that it has to attempt to add a requirement to this Rule of Evidence because the employees’ statements are clearly not hearsay under Rule of Evidence 801(e)(2)(D). In fact, the statements made by Appellee’s employees set forth in Appellant’s Affidavit meet the test of Rule 801(e)(2) (D) and Appellee’s effort to somehow revise this applicable Rule of Evidence with a case which is not on point does not make those C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 10 statements hearsay. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF As Appellant Gerald Kostecka has demonstrated, the trial court erred in granting Appellee Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to Appellant’s premises liability claim. Appellant properly raised a material issue of fact with respect to each of the elements of the premises liability claim brought by Appellant. Accordingly, the summary judgment issued by the trial court should be reversed and the cause should be remanded for trial. WHEREFORE, Appellant Gerald Kostecka asks this Court to rule C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 11 for Appellant with respect to the issues he presented for appeal, to reverse the trial court=s granting of Appellee Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ=s motion for no-evidence summary judgment and to remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Appellant further respectfully requests that this Court assess costs of this appeal against Appellee, Tex. R. App. P. 82, and grant Appellant such other and further relief to which he may be entitled. C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 12 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICESOF STUART WHITLOW 1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116 Round Rock, Texas 78664 (737)346-1837 (512) 255-5938 (fax) stuartwhitlowlaw@yahoo.com By:_____/s/Stuart Whitlow____________ Stuart Whitlow State Bar No. 21378050 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 13 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record listed below on this 2nd day of December, 2015. Robert A. House Clark & Trevino 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 920 Austin, Texas 78744 ________/s/ Stuart Whitlow________ Stuart Whitlow CERTIFICATE OF PAGE NUMBER COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that I have counted the words in the brief and that they total 1175. C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 14 _______/s/Stuart Whitlow______ Stuart Whitlow C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 15 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 16 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 17 C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC 18